Sunday, 2 May 2010

One of the main aims of the European Union is to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) without internal frontiers.

With the Lisbon Treaty in force since 1 December 2009, the provisions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters are found in Part Three, Title V, Chapter 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Articles 82 to 86 TFEU; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83 for the latest consolidated version of the EU Treaties).

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the European Union is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions. The ordinary legislative procedure is now used to lay down rules and procedures for ensuring recognition throughout the EU of all forms of judgments and judicial decisions (Article 82 TFEU; OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/79).

Before the entry into force of the amending Lisbon Treaty, the Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA was adopted, although the EU member states have until 19 January 2011 to take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions:

The European Council considers that the setting up of a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued. The existing instruments in this area constitute a fragmentary regime. A new approach is needed, based on the principle of mutual recognition but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance. This new model could have a broader scope and should cover as many types of evidence as possible, taking account of the measures concerned.

The European Council then invited the Commission to (page 39):

• propose a comprehensive system, after an impact assessment, to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18 December 2008 on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, covering as far as possible all types of evidence and containing deadlines for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal;

• explore whether there are other means to facilitate admissibility of evidence in this area;

Stockholm Programme Action Plan

The European Commission has published its Communication (proposal) for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme:

The following paragraph presents the general aims of the Commission in the area of criminal matters (page 5):

Criminal law is a relatively novel area of EU action for which the Treaty of Lisbon sets a clear legal framework. A criminal justice strategy, fully respecting subsidiarity and coherence, should guide the EU's policy for the approximation of substantive and procedural criminal law. It should be pursued in close cooperation with European Parliament, national parliaments and the Council and acknowledge that focus will remain primarily on mutual recognition and the harmonisation of offences and sanctions will be pursued for selected cases.

Promoting mutual recognition in the field of criminal law, the Commission foresees two proposals in 2011 (page 18):

• Legislative proposal on a comprehensive regime on obtaining evidence in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition and covering all types of evidence

• Legislative proposal to introduce common standards for gathering evidence in criminal matters in order to ensure its admissibility

UK House of Commons

The UK House of Commons Justice Committee has published an assessment of developments in the European Union:

On pages 26 and 27 the Committee discusses the European evidence warrant and related questions:

59. Nevertheless, there are currently two parallel initiatives which may provide the basis for a new measure. The first, a green paper on the gathering and admission of evidence, was issued by the European Commission in 2009 to enable consultation and detailed investigation before new legislation is proposed. In addition, it is anticipated that a member state initiative, led by Belgium, will propose the introduction of a “European investigation order”.

Criticism against the disproportionate use of EU instruments has been heard, because the Justice Committee concludes:

60. While the Government may wish the EU to adopt a “look before you legislate” approach, the ability of member states to present their own initiatives may pre-empt more considered approaches by the European Commission. We agree with the Government that, if the European evidence warrant is revised or replaced, lessons should be learned from the operation of the European arrest warrant by incorporating safeguards into the legislation to minimise the potential for disproportionate use.

Ralf Grahn

P.S.1: If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA), the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.

Journalists, media and bloggers covering European affairs are encouraged to spread the word about My Europe Week, the blog dedicated to posts with personal visions on Europe’s future.

From tomorrow, 3 April, to Europe Day 9 April 2010, you can write a blog post on My Europe Week or link a story on your own blog, in the language of your choice. These can include Europe Day events in the member states.

You can join the conversation on Twitter under the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay.